Stan, at his blog, recently addressed a post citing my concern about harm done to innocent people. The gist of his post is that "harm" as a measure for morality, is an imperfect measure. We, as people, won't be able to agree on what is and isn't harmful and HOW harmful something is. This, is, of course, not mistaken. Harm - and the extended notion of human rights - is not an objectively definable measure for morality.
Stan's conclusion, then, of course, was, "But we have the Bible and what GOD tells us, and that's a better measure." (My words, not his, but I do not think it's an unfair representation of the gist of his post. My response to Stan (not one that he posts or will post, but he's probably read - I know this because he routinely responds to my questions, even if he doesn't actually answer them).
Given your premises in this post - that harm is an imperfect
measure of morality, that maybe your religious opinions and
interpretations of the Bible are more reliable, I think a good-faith
point to raise would be to consider the benefits of the notions of "harm" and human
rights are to considering moral questions and policies and the PROBLEMS
of religious opinion and holy texts. Namely...
1. While it is a given that notions of "harm" and human rights are an inexact measure, they ARE at least a measure. Further, they are a measure that people could look to regardless if they are conservative or liberal, evangelical Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or non-religious. It is a fairly universal measure, and that's not nothing.
2.
Broadly speaking, we can see that most religions and secular groups can
affirm the notion of human rights and can affirm the notion of the
various golden rules, common to all religions - do unto others. In
general, that is a widely accepted truth.
3.
Further, it's not THAT complex, in broad terms: We should not be able to
deprive others of their lives, of their livelihoods, people should not
be beaten or raped or have their homes burned down. It's relatively
understandable and reasonable and agreeable for most people. Thus,
"harm," while an imperfect measure, IS a helpful measure and a fairly
universal measure, at least in broad terms.
4.
On the other hand, if we're going to appeal to "My Religious Text" or
"My religion," we immediately fall into the very difficult problem of
WHOSE religious text, WHOSE religion, WHOSE version of that religion,
WHOSE interpretation of those texts? What of those who don't SHARE that
religion's premises and policies and opinions?
Do you see? There is no universal or objective source or decider to has the authority to make that call/those calls.
5.
For my part, as a person of faith and what might be called a religious
person, I would want no part of setting up policies based upon my
religious beliefs or my views of particular texts wholly to me. To try
to force policy based on any one person/set of person/subset of some
religion is problematic on the face of it. EVEN for the religious ones
who might at some level delight in the notion of a Religious Realm. That
would be a great threat to a society, wouldn't you think? The fights
and oppression and chaos that would potentially bring?
6.
No, on a local, state of national level, I want policies that are
rational and can be appealed to on the basis of harm and human rights,
because in a multicultural, poly-religious world, that makes the most
sense.
I would argue for support human rights
and self-determination for LGBTQ folks NOT because I believe it's what
God would approve (which I do) but because it's also rational. Of
course, free humans should be able to make their own decisions about
marriage, who they love, their children, etc... So long as they're not
causing harm to others.
I would argue for
support of parents raising their children as they deem best not because I
think God approves (although I do think that), but because of human
rights and self-determination... so long as they're not causing harm to
that child.
I would argue for rights of people
to move from one place to another - especially if they're escaping
danger or starvation/deprivation - NOT because I think the Bible tells
us so (although, of course, it does) but because of human rights and
harm prevention... So long as they immigrants in question do no harm.
Can you acknowledge the benefit of "harm" and human rights as a policy measure in a multicultural setting, especially as opposed to one group's personal religious opinions?
